Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
OBJECTIVES/GOALS: A new mandate for Clinical a recorded webinar that educated about CTS and the funding opportunity; office hours to provide tailored project feedback; a letter of intent to screen for alignment with CTS; and reviewer training for academic and community reviewers. Funded projects operate like 'mini cooperative agreements”, with MICHR experts partnering with awardees to refine evaluation plans, prepare work products, advise on dissemination, and navigate emergent challenges. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The first round of funding was launched in the absence of pre-award supports; ten applications we received from faculty proposing translational research rather than CTS. We quickly re-released the FOA, expanding eligibility to staff. We received nine applications, ultimately funding four staff and one faculty studying operational challenges in translation and helping them create robust evaluation plans. We piloted the pre-award supports in our second round, with 40 individuals viewing our webinar and 11 attending office hours. Those who watched the webinar before attending office hours better understood how to embed CTS questions within their programs of research. We recently received 19 letters of intent, addressing both operational and scientific challenges, with 16 eligible to submit applications. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Education and personalized feedback seem to elicit a higher yield of CTS projects. Staff are already adept at solving operational challenges, so the pre-award supports were most critical for faculty accustomed to writing traditional translational research proposals. Staff have most benefited from guidance in evaluation and dissemination.
LaPensee et al. (2024) studied this question.